You have one resolution using the horizontal resolution to determine the arbitrary "k" naming scheme (3840x2160) while another, you're using the vertical resolution? (2560x1440). What about resolutions that aren't 16x9?

This whole "k" naming scheme doesn't make any sense and does nothing but confuse people.

Just define the resolution you're using and there is no ambiguity or at LEAST using a shorthand that makes sense and follows a common convention.

Look, many companies decided to put out documents like that but it doesn't make any of it official. Hell, even the official Wiki for "2K" states that 1080p, based on the numbers, could very much so be considered 2K however DCI does not official recognize it as such.

3840, near 4000, considered 4K
1920, even nearer to 2000, not considered 2k

Do you see how silly this is?

Basically, there is no officially recognized standardization for these shorthand naming schemes so why bother trying to force them down people's throats? It works for laypeople but makes zero sense for those of us who know a thing or two about resolution.

Accepted progression of monitor height as developed.
480
720
1080
2k is 2x 720p or 1440 more commonly referred to as QHD
4k is 2x 1080 or 2160 more commonly referred to as 4k
variation exist due to aspect ratio and delivery methods commonly adopted by media production
standard, interlaced, progressive (delivery methods) (in order of development)
4:3 16:9 16:10 21:9 etc etc (aspect ratios)
Understanding how each was developed cannot be ignored
2k was developed by doubling the 720p standard
4k was developed by doubling the 1080p standard
FACTS
In any case my vote for 2k was for 1440p which I cealrly understood as asked.

Accepted progression of monitor height as developed.
480
720
1080
2k is 2x 720p or 1440 more commonly referred to as QHD
4k is 2x 1080 or 2160 more commonly referred to as 4k
variation exist due to aspect ratio and delivery methods commonly adopted by media production
standard, interlaced, progressive (delivery methods) (in order of development)
4:3 16:9 16:10 21:9 etc etc (aspect ratios)
Understanding how each was developed cannot be ignored
2k was developed by doubling the 720p standard
4k was developed by doubling the 1080p standard
FACTS
In any case my vote for 2k was for 1440p which I cealrly understood as asked.

Click to expand...

You need sources to call something a fact.

2560x1440 is 4x the pixels of 1280x720, just as 3840x2160 is 4x the pixels of 1920x1080.

When UHD was just becoming a thing and 4K didn't become the official marketing term, UHD displays were advertised as "4K x 2K" as shorthand for the actual resolution that was further shortened to "4K." Originally the standalone terms "2K" and "4K" referred to the DCI definitions of 2048x1080 and 4096x2160, respectively. Both are now commonly used to refer to the standard 16:9 resolutions of 1920x1080 and 3840x2160.https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/14/wtf_is_4k_by_2k/

You have one resolution using the horizontal resolution to determine the arbitrary "k" naming scheme (3840x2160) while another, you're using the vertical resolution? (2560x1440). What about resolutions that aren't 16x9?

This whole "k" naming scheme doesn't make any sense and does nothing but confuse people.

Just define the resolution you're using and there is no ambiguity or at LEAST using a shorthand that makes sense and follows a common convention.

Click to expand...

Well with different sizes I suppose you can't nail it to one specific for any type of display device.

I do all my gaming on a 4K television. Most modern games allow for resolution scaling. That allows me to play at your native resolution while rendering something closer to 1440p. Best of both worlds.
Otherwise, I have no issue going with normal 'ol 1080p if that isn't an option.

Newly purchased 1080p @ 144Hz G-Sync curved VA. GTX 970 @ 1442MHz running the screen. Will keep the screen and only upgrade GPU. Will update display once ultrawides at higher resolutions and high refresh rates become reasonable, GPUs with higher than the currently restrictive DP 1.4 for the new 4K HDR 144Hz screens.

It's tough. For productivity 16:10 is better, but for gaming and movies not so much. At this point in time I wish I had a 21:9, only the screen fitting my wants doesn't exist yet at the price I'm willing to pay for a monitor.

Lol yes! Even if they started at the top and worked their way down it would be a fun ride!

Click to expand...

I skipped a few posts and didn't realize the horror posts on clarification of shorthand names LOL really should just use full numbers instead of "WQHD+" so people don't go searching the resolution terms and come out just more confused. Why isn't Cinema 4K the standard?